Sea Devils And Die: GeroniMoffat's Doctor Who In The 2010s

**opportunist gag

Agree with e.mily re this: I don't mind so much about Who being about the companions and their relationship with/comprehension of the Doctor, but I can definitely see why you're frustrated when it leads to shoddy plotting.

I'm perfectly willing to handwave tiny plotholes away (like what happens to the surviving Angel in the graveyard), but so much of that just doesn't hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. I just don't understand how a fixed point in time lasts 50 years, why couldn't he just pick them up a couple of years later? or meet them in Texas or something, if he couldn't go back to New York? You read a name on a gravestone so you can't change time - is that it?

But even if The Doctor couldn't take them along with him, then why couldn't he at least go visit them? since River presumably went back using her vortex manipulator to give Amy the book, I don't see why the Doctor couldn't do the same.

It's just sooo lazy and really detracted from the story they were trying to tell. I'm not the biggest fan of how Amy and Rory have been used/written in some of the stories, but they were great characters and deserved a better ending than this.

It's been established since Blink that when the Angels send someone back in time, there's nothing the Doctor can do to save them as it would rewrite time and make the universe explode or something. As a few people have pointed out, the Ponds' exit wasn't unlike Rose's, in that they're sent to a place where the Doctor can never see them. And then there's Donna too - the Doctor cannot visit her or the universe would explode. Only Martha seems to have avoided a similar fate.

I really don't care about the plausibility of the Statue of Liberty moving across Manhattan. It looked cool and scary.

Really? I remember somebody (Sadowitz, maybe?) saying the thing that put him off magic was David Copperfield making the Statue of Liberty "disappear". That you got to a point where an act, where the suspension of disbelief was the key, stretched your disbelief to the point you can't take it seriously.

Er...

Er...

Some more potentially horrendously obvious stuff:

If the Doctor can't go back to New York in the TARDIS, why don't they just meet in Washington or whatever?
Why doesn't Amy, having grown up knowing what always happens to her and having been given the book to publish by River, give the date and place for the rendezvous with the Doctor in it?
If River can meet up with time-dislocated Amy and give her the book, why can't the Doctor?
If the TARDIS can't go to New York, THE WHOLE REASON WHY RORY AND AMY 'DIE', then how does the Doctor take it back there AT THE END OF THE EPISODE to get the last page of the book?

If the TARDIS can't go to New York, THE WHOLE REASON WHY RORY AND AMY 'DIE', then how does the Doctor take it back there AT THE END OF THE EPISODE to get the last page of the book?

what??? the problem was that particular point in 1938 that he had trouble navigating into. The book was in the picnic basket in 2012.

WHY

WAS

AMY

WEARING

HARRY POTTER GLASSES.

You know, to look hip.

It sums up what I hate about NuWho - the companions being the most important part of the story. They're not, they're our interface with the Whoniverse. It shouldn't be about THEM.

I disagree with this. The GREAT thing about the 2005 series was that it was all happening through Rose's eyes. It was Rose's story; Rose's experience. The whole concept was infinitely relatable to a new generation of viewers, particularly females (let's just for one second ignore the show's complete lack of female writers for the first two years). That's what got it smashing the 10m viewer barrier or whatever it was that time. If this were all DOCTOR WHO: BLOKES IN SPACE it wouldn't have had half the eyeballs and therefore half the onsell revenue and merchandising.

On that, last week's episode was about Amy and Rory (which incidentally is why I got annoyed by all the anorak timey-wimey continuinty etc. analysis). This week's SHOULD have been about Amy and Rory (and, on the face of it, it was), but REALLY it was about stories about stories and determinism and angel farming and 750,000 hipsters who apparently all shut their eyes at exactly the same time at least twice. The two characters who should have been bang in focus were instead subject to a load of clever-pants Moffat horse shit. You actually can no longer watch this show without paying attention to the man behind the curtain, which is especially arrogant when he's writing out two of his show's leads.

A HUGE problem I had with this episode, as Roz & aldo mentioned: Why can't the Doctor just go to, I dunno, 1939 and grab Amy and Rory a year later? Why can't he do timey-wimey to leave them a note to get a train to say Albany and just pick them up there? The stakes were nowhere nearly high enough to justify that awkwardly emotional ending. And anyway, they'll just bloody retcon the whole thing because that's what they always do on this show now. Rose was supposed to be trapped permanently and immutably in Finland or whatever until suddenly she wasn't. Donna was never supposed to see or hear or even think about anyone ever again on pain of major torturous death, until she came back for an encore appearance like 12 minutes later. The Doctor was supposed to die properly last year until suddenly oh ha ha he is not dead see we tricked you. None of this 'permanence' shit means anything anymore.

Also, the angels have now been so over-used that they're no longer scary or suspenseful or even interesting.

What especially pisses me off is that this year had been superb.

btw I just checked the writing credits since 2005 to find that the only female writers in that time have been:

- Helen Raynor
- some school children

Also, the angels have now been so over-used that they're no longer scary or suspenseful or even interesting.

Same thing happened with the Borg. :(

What especially pisses me off is that this year had been superb.

Ditto! Except I hated "... Mercy."

Oh yeah I hated that one too, but I'm aware that loads of people liked it for pretty good reasons.

(and even 'hate' is unfair tbh, I just found it boring)

This wasn't well written but for me it was very sad.

No-one saw the Statue Of Liberty moving bcz New Yorkers are all jaded fucks.

creating the paradox would cause the Tardis to explode creating those cracks in the universe,

The Silence did it.

I did like how when the Daily Star EXCLUSIVELY revealed the Angel of Liberty thing a couple of months ago it was decried as stupid by a lot of the people currently saying it was brilliant.

Who?

If the Doctor can't go back to New York in the TARDIS, why don't they just meet in Washington or whatever?

It's been established since Blink that when the Angels send someone back in time, there's nothing the Doctor can do to save them as it would rewrite time and make the universe explode or something

Why doesn't Amy, having grown up knowing what always happens to her and having been given the book to publish by River, give the date and place for the rendezvous with the Doctor in it?
If River can meet up with time-dislocated Amy and give her the book, why can't the Doctor?

What? Your second question contradicts your first. Amy hasn't always grown up knowing what would happen to her, she isn't given the MS until she's time-dislocated (it seems).

You actually can no longer watch this show without paying attention to the man behind the curtain, which is especially arrogant when he's writing out two of his show's leads.

This is much less the case than with the last two producers, because he doesn't go urgently out of his way to make himself the public face of the show or spruik himself as the font of all ideas. Also it was much worse with RTD because his plot holes were so much huger and stupider, and his character knife-turns so unearned, that one was yelling at the set for 40 out of every 45 minutes, instead of grumping later about how stuff didn't fit together.

A HUGE problem I had with this episode, as Roz & aldo mentioned: Why can't the Doctor just go to, I dunno, 1939 and grab Amy and Rory a year later? Why can't he do timey-wimey to leave them a note to get a train to say Albany and just pick them up there?

It's been established since Blink that when the Angels send someone back in time, there's nothing the Doctor can do to save them as it would rewrite time and make the universe explode or something

And anyway, they'll just bloody retcon the whole thing because that's what they always do on this show now.

Moffatt has changed time in-story for plot reasons; Russell refused to actually earn moments, so he'd just have someone say "Rose can never see the Doctor again" or "all the Daleks but one have been destroyed," or "all the Time Lords are dead," or "all the Daleks have been destroyed AGAIN" so that he could go 'ZOMG I BROUGHT THEM BACK YOU WEREN'T EXPECTING THAT!' Either (or both!) of them can be annoying or frustrating to viewers' tastes, but one's a shit-lazy cheat and one isn't, imo.

The Doctor was supposed to die properly last year until suddenly oh ha ha he is not dead see we tricked you.

Nonsense, this was always going to be about revealing how the trick was done and how the Doctor came up with it. The show hadn't been cancelled forever.

It's been established since Blink that when the Angels send someone back in time, there's nothing the Doctor can do to save them as it would rewrite time and make the universe explode or something

also I notice it was all right for them to visit billion-year-old Rory on his death bed yet it's unacceptable for the Doctor to visit them now

that's just shoddy 'oh but oh but but' logic imo

Which is kind of inevitable in a time-travel story, you have to admit.

But if anyone's keeping track, I did like this episode. ;_;

Which is kind of inevitable in a time-travel story, you have to admit.

Yeah look I don't have a problem with the odd accidental paradox or inaccuracy or whatever creeping into timey-wimey episodes, I just don't buy into this idea that (a) the Doctor can't just sort of meet up with them in 1939/Atlantic City/&c. and (b) that they will never ever undo this ridiculous ~law of science~ in order to bring them back for a 50th anniversary special.

also re this

Nonsense, this was always going to be about revealing how the trick was done and how the Doctor came up with it. The show hadn't been cancelled forever.

― ┐(´ー｀)┌ (sic), Monday, 1 October 2012 11:11 (19 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Obviously the show was never cancelled forever and obviously the Doctor was never going to die, but Moffat expended more energy than was necessary promising that the Doctor would genuinely die and that there was genuinely no trick, even though at the time we all know it was complete bollocks.

so you'll forgive me for not falling in line with any other promises he makes ever.

(xpost) c'mon, that'd be FOURTEEN MONTHS away, any loopholes would be totally earned by then

also I notice it was all right for them to visit billion-year-old Rory on his death bed yet it's unacceptable for the Doctor to visit them now

they didn't visit him though, they bumped into naturally AFTER his entire time-displaced life had lived out - they never found out he'd been displaced and even attempted to track him down.

we saw the ex-cop on his deathbed in Blink too, after his entire displaced etc etc

Obviously the show was never cancelled forever and obviously the Doctor was never going to die, but Moffat expended more energy than was necessary promising that the Doctor would genuinely die and that there was genuinely no trick, even though at the time we all know it was complete bollocks.

where did he do this?

This wasn't that great, although Amy and Rory jumping off the roof was awesome

they didn't visit him though, they bumped into naturally AFTER his entire time-displaced life had lived out - they never found out he'd been displaced and even attempted to track him down.

i.e. exactly the 'oh but oh but but' school of water-tight logic that the producers of this show keep dipping into.

where did he do this?

annoyingly I can't find the actual quote, just loads of references to it. still looking though

Sea Devils And Die: GeroniMoffat's Doctor Who In The 2010s

the source for that quote... appears to be a Tumblr

and Doctor Who Confidential?

Doctor Who Confidential doesn't come up on a Google search

http://www.readandfindout.com/tvmovies/messageboard/223305/

I recall Moffat himself saying that it is the real Doctor that perishes on the beach. Running through my collection of the DVR to find the comment.

EDIT: Found it. About 6 minutes into the episode of Doctor Who Confidential covering the Impossible Astronaut. The quote follows:

"He really does die in that first scene, and that really is him."

point being though that they were always going to find a way to bend time so that it wasn't actually the Doctor who died

if the story introduces an intentional paradox or change in the time stream, it's not bad plotting

well yes, the Doctor was never going to die, I was just raising it as another reason to never believe any promises made by this show

About 884,000 results (0.46 seconds) for rule 1 moffatt lies

um yes

So this episode was basically the Ghostbusters II of MoffatWho.

Moffatt was quoted in several BBC press releases and said at a comic convention (SDCC?) that it was genuine death and there was no trick.

In response to some other stuff up there:

Online people (not from here) were bitching and moaning at the time of the SoL leak about how it was typical tabloid bullshit and couldn't possibly true and was a ridiculous idea. An awful lot of them now are saying what a great bit of tv it was.

It wasn't established in Blink that The Doctor couldn't bring people back once the Angels sent them back, after all he managed to bring himself and Martha back. (In fact, wasn't that the first usage of 'timey-wimey' to refer to his machine he makes?)

Amy does always know what happens to her, she sends The Doctor back to tell the 7 year old Amelia all about her life. And the time-dislocated Amy is the one that writes the afterword so it would be dead easy for her to write a paragraph which says "Lincoln Memorial, 30th June 1953. I'll buy the coffee." So why doesn't she?

There's nothing after them being sent backwards that matters to the Angels (it's stated in Blink that they feed on the rush of potential energy from sending people back to before they were born) so why wouldn't you be able to see them? The Doctor himself says the Angels "kill you nicely" because once you've been sent back you get to live your life all alone.

Other plot points from previous stories conveniently forgotten include "whatever holds the image of an angel becomes an angel" - characters seemed to quite happily look at them without starting to turn to stone like Amy did; "quantum locked angels" - two at the ends of a corridor are facing each other, but are still able to move; "the Angels have the blue box" - the TARDIS can provide them enough time energy to satisfy all their needs now and forever (from Blink) but now they're completely uninterested in it?

Finally, Doctor Who has never been Blokes In Space, not at any time in its history. And the female characters have always been strong/spunky/whatever, ever since the beginning.

I rewatched Blink the other week and the Angels did not send the Doctor and Martha back to 1969. They were already in 1969 when the Angels stole the Tardis, leaving them stranded there. As they weren't time locked, they could return to the present day once they got the Tardis back.
So Moffat has been entirely consistent with the show's internal logic. When the Angels send someone back it's a done deal.
Granted some of the other stuff you mention - Angels facing each other, people looking away etc - might have been a little inconsistent, but it's pretty minor stuff I'm quite happy to handwave when I'm being swept up in the action.

Fair enough on Blink, I haven't seen it in ages.

I've just rewatched Saturday's and the inconsistencies I point out are still there. Plus I spotted a new one: it's a cherub that sends Rory back to 1938, but when he gets moved the second time the explanation for space not time is that they can't do time. Also, it's confirmed in the text that Rory (and the detective from the opener) get shunted back once into the hotel where they see out all of their days until they get old - multiple bounceback is not mentioned at all - which makes the entire concept of the hotel redundant as they get the energy from the shunt back into the past irrespective of what happens to the individual once they're there (Angels plots passim).

In terms of going back to see Amy & Rory the Doctor just says he can't and doesn't offer any other explanation why - but he does say he can't ever land the TARDIS in New York again because of the rift problems that give him trouble landing it in this episode, and if he tried it would DEFINITELY destroy the city (and maybe the Earth). Only to do it a couple of minutes later; he and River have left in the TARDIS before he goes back to get the last page of the book so he must have landed it in NYC again and HANG THE CONSEQUENCES.

Oh, and Amy tells him he has to go and tell the 7 year old Amelia ALL of her adventures with the Doctor so Amy must have grown up knowing everything that she was about to do.

he doesn't say he can't ever land it in NY again, he says he can't land it 'here' again - so presumably that point in space and time, not just space. Also, we don't see the cherub send him back, we just hear it chase him: an adult statue could have come along to do teh time/space honours.

but yeah the multiple bounceback thing is a real missed opportunity: the idea of someone being constantly bounced back in little increments, each time they try to leave, is so fascinating but they fuck it up with the stone mecha SoL stuff. (also how can they live out their lives in the hotel, where does their food even come from, this is bullshit)

i think having the doctor go back and tell little Amelia stories is actually quite a good way of redoing the "imaginary friend" thing? which is necessary to ensure Mels' doctor fixation, etc.

And the time-dislocated Amy is the one that writes the afterword so it would be dead easy for her to write a paragraph which says "Lincoln Memorial, 30th June 1953. I'll buy the coffee." So why doesn't she? - there were other plot issues i willfully ignored while watching it but this one nagged at me (well, this and statue of liberty. comparison to ghostbuster II unfair to ghostbusters II imo). moffat wanted to 1) get rids of ponds 2) have it be tragic, w/ a sacrifice 3) have it be permanent 4) o but let's not kill them though. angels provided vehicle for doing so and them being moffat's signature monster added to appeal. the 'o and you can't visit them' seemed a dumb, unnecessary element to add gravity to sadness and farewell (and maybe allow the relatively poetic element of the afterword). in the moment i was crying my eyes out but afterward it occurred to me that this ending isn't even that sad really for them, there is the sadness of not being able to (easily) communicate w/ their family and whatever friends they've managed to hold on to but beyond that they get the best of both of their 2 lifes, they're permanent time travelers who in their day to day life will get the thrill and adventure of living in the past while at the same time being able to put down roots, start a family, etc. i just wish moffat had gone one step further and had rory be his own grandfather. still enjoyed it greatly. love the ponds but ready for new hotness. do think angels well has been gone to too often for sure and regret that door wasn't closed on them also. curious if anyone here can tell me what changes in opening credits means.

he doesn't say he can't ever land it in NY again, he says he can't land it 'here' again - so presumably that point in space and time, not just space.

That makes even less sense. Why would he need to land it at that space/time place unless that was the only place/time that Amy, he or River could ever conceive seeing her again even though she's dead by then/there?

Granted we don't see the cherub send Amy back, but it's trailed hard from Bethseda Fountain and Bethseda terrace isn't actually that dark you could have a full size statue moving round unnoticed. It would also be the only statue there...

I think the opening titles are just green because the angels are. I pointed out a while ago they'd been getting darker as the series went on, but I'm sure that was just foreshadowing the Pond departure.

xpost Angels facing each other isn't just "a little inconsistent"! It's their being frozen by any gaze that allows the Doctor to paralyse them all for ever in Blink by dematerialising the Tardis while they surround it. It's crucial to their MO.

It's also why they're called "weeping" because they cover their faces so they can't see each other.

I didn't really like this ep and spent much of the episode shouting "get on with it!", "less emo!" and "why is nobody looking at the statue?!" at the telly (apparently an extra previously unknown rule of the angels is that they do not move while you are giving a long emo speech) and I nodded along to various plotholes grumbled about on this thread

but now I have read sic's big post I am ready to say that it was okayish and maybe I'm just grumpy and at least the Moff is not RTD, still

i feel like we haven't talked enough about how bad the music was in this episode?

Maybe just because it goes without saying but DEAR GOD THE ROOFTOP SCENE.

I have become deaf to Murray Gold's music over the years, I think overexposure to his music has now allowed me to tune it out.